On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Alex Barcelo <abarc...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 23:17, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 7 March 2012 22:01, Alex Barcelo <abarc...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: >>> Is this patch okay? The first version had some comments, and now the >>> v2 has been a bit too silent, not sure if that's a good sign or a bad >>> sign. >> >> Did you see the comment I added to an earlier thread regarding >> FORTIFY_SOURCE? > > Sorry about that! Yes, I got the comment mixed between some other > threads, and now I was checking and didn't remember it. > > About the FORTIFY_SOURCE... I don't know very well what does that mean > and what it does, I kept it from the ucontext code without thinking a > lot (irresponsibly? yes, maybe a bit). > >> I think in general my opinion is swinging round to: >> * coroutines are a portability nightmare > agreed ;) >> * so we should either (a) ideally avoid them altogether > seems better the coroutines than state machines on every I/O process
Going back to callbacks is moving in the wrong direction. Instead we could take a step forward and come up with a proper threading model for QEMU and convert coroutine code to execute in worker threads. In fact, Paolo has already posted some ideas about a threaded block layer and a prototype git branch. I think this is the right approach to follow. Stefan
